ORGANIZATION  FOR  THE  ENLARGEMENT  BY  THE  STATE  OF  TEXAS  OF 
ITS 


INSTITU^^OF  HIGHER  EDUCATION.  ^  ^ 

^UhlOls  i  atm 


apr  x 


u 


191? 


A  STUDY  OF  THE -FINANCIAL  BASIS  OF  THE  STATE  UNIVER¬ 
SITIES  AND  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGES  IN 
FOURTEEN  STATES. 


The  most  practical  means  of  forming  an  intelligent  opinion  of  the  proper 
financial  basis  which  should  be  provided  by  a  State  for  its  institutions  of 
higher  education  will  be  afforded  by  a  genuine  study  of  existing  conditions 
in  all  the  States  that  have  seriously  undertaken  to  secure  efficient  services 
from  such  institutions. 

In  some  States,  such  as  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jer- 
sey,  Pennsylvania,  and  Maryland,  great  endowed  institutions  have  obviated 
the  necessity  of  universities  maintained  by  the  co-operation  of  the  people. 

In  many  States  the  people  have  not  yet  learned  to  understand  the  com¬ 
monwealth^  need  of  the  services  of  higher  education.  They  still  entertain 
the  notion  that  only  those  who  attend  a  school  are  benefited  by  that  school, 
and  are  blind  to  the  truth  that  higher  education  may  be  of  incalculable  worth 
and  service  to  society  at  large.  It  would  be  profitless  to  study  the  condition 
of  the  institutions  maintained  by  such  States,  unless  one  wished  to  consider 
warning  examples. 

Universities  which  derive  their  financial  support  wholly  or  mainly  from 
endowments  have  been  excluded  from  this  study.  They  would,  indeed,  afford 
many  notable  examples  of  useful  lines  and  methods  of  service;  and  in  any 
study  intended  to  elaborate  a  program  of  desirable  activities  on  the  part  of  a 
university,  the  practice  of  such  institutions  should  be  carefully  considered, 
borne  such  study  may  be  undertaken  by  the  present  writer  in  the  future. 
The  limited  purpose  of  this  investigation  is  to  show  the  financial  basis  of 
the  leading  State  institutions  of  higher  education,  in  order  that  the  people 
of  Texas  may  learn  what  the  people  of  other  States  are  doing  for  themselves. 

It  should  be  noted  that,  in  some  of  the  States  whose  people  are  doing  most 
for  themselves,  strong  denominational  colleges  and  great  endowed  universities 
also  exist,  rendering  their  share  of  the  desired  services.  The  most  notable 
cases  are  Leland  Stanford  University  in  California,  the  University  of  Chicago 
in  Illinois,  and  the  University  of  Cincinnati  in  Ohio.  To  show  what  those 
States  are  really  getting,  these  universities  should  have  been  included  along 
with  the  State  institutions;  but  only  the  State  institutions  are  taken  into 
account.  The  comparison  with  Texas  here  presented  is,  therefore,  more  favor¬ 
able  to  Texas  than  the  full  truth  would  be. 

The  indicated  principles  of  selection  lead  to  the  following  States,  as  those 
whose  Legislatures  have  provided  approximately  adequate  financial  resources 
for  the  development  of  efficient  State  universities:  California,  Colorado, 
Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  North  Dakota,  Ohio, 
Wisconsin.  I  do  not  mean  that  all  the  universities  concerned  are  efficiently 
organized  or  administered  ;  but  the  people  have  undertaken  to  do  their  part. 

Colorado  and  Nebraska  fall  so  low  when  income  is  divided  by  number  of 
students,  that  it  may  seem  illjudged  to  have  included  them ;  brtt  the  10-cent 


—2— 


university  tax  in  Nebraska  and  the  8-cents  tax  in  Colorado  show  that  they 
“have  seriously  undertaken  to  secure  efficient  services.”  A  proper  founda¬ 
tion  has  been  laid  and  conditions  will  improve  as  their  wealth  increases. 

Little  Wyoming,  with  her  State  University  tax  of  5  cents  on  the  $100, 
should  have  been  included  so  far  as  the  wise  foundation  which  has  been  laid 
by  her  people  is  concerned ;  but  both  the  State  and  the  University  are  yet  so 
small  (the  population  of  the  State  is  only  145,965),  that  its  inclusion  would 
cause  misleading  results.  At  present  the  University  of  Wyoming  costs  more 
per  inhabitant,  more  per  $1000  of  wealth  in  the  State,  and  more  per  pupil, 
than  any  other  State  university  in  the  country;  but  these  consequences  of 
the  small  size  of  the  University  and  the  small  population  and  wealth  of  the 
State  could  not  be  fairly  compared  with  disparate  conditions  in  other  States. 

The  omission  of  Virginia  may  be  surprising  to  some  readers;  but  in  spite 
of  the  priceless  asset  possessed  by  the  University  of  Virginia  in  its  honorable 
traditions,  and  in  spite  of  the  brave  efforts  of  its  administrators  and  faculty, 
the  people  of  the  Old  Dominion  have  not  yet  provided  a  financial  basis  suffi¬ 
cient  to  justify  the  inclusion  of  Virginia  in  a  group  selected  on  the  principle 
here  applied.  Except  for  Kansas,  which  is  to  be  presently  mentioned,  it  is 
believed  that  no  other  omission  calls  for  explanation. 

There  remain  three  States  which  stand  between  the  omitted  States,  and  any 
one  or  the  average  of  all  of  the  States  chosen.  Those  three  are  Kansas,  Mis¬ 
souri,  and  Texas.  In  each,  movements  are  on  foot  to  secure  the  services  to  the 
commonwealth,  needed  everywhere,  and  which  are  being  enjoyed  by  the  people 
of  the  most  progressives  States. 

Kansas  might  have  been  included  in  the  leading  group,  if  one  regarded 
only  the  rate  of  expenditure  per  inhabitant  or  per  unit  of  wealth ;  but  when 
the  ratio  of  number  of  teachers  to  number  of  students,  and  income  divided 
by  number  of  students  are  considered,  the  former  places  it  little  above  and 
the  latter  puts  it  below  Texas.  The  people  of  Kansas  spend  three  times  as 
much  per  inhabitant  for  higher  education  as  do  the  people  of  Texas;  but 
Kansas,  with  less  than  half  the  population  of  Texas,  has  a  thousand  more 
students  than  are  in  the  corresponding  institutions  in  Texas.  It  is  believed 
that  Kansas  will  soon  adopt  financial  measures  which  will  secure  efficiency 
in  the  rapidly  developing  work  of  its  institutions. 

Missouri  barely  missed  last  year  success  in  establishing  a  tax  for  the  proper 
maintenance  of  its  State  University.  The  constitutional  amendment  for  the 
university  tax  was  unfortunately  submitted  on  the  same  ballot  with  ten 
other  amendments,  some  having  been  put  on  the  ballot  by  joint  resolution 
of  the  Legislature  and  some  by  initiative  and  referendum.  All  met  a  com¬ 
mon  defeat.  It  is  confidently  expected  that  a  similar  amendment,  freed  from 
the  complications  of  last  year,  will  be  submitted  to  the  people  and  adopted 
next  year. 

It  remains  to  be  seen  when  Texas  will  take  a  similar  step,  either  through 
act  of  the  Legislature  or  constitutional  amendment,  as  may  be  required. 

President  Albert  Loss  Hill,  the  great  president  of  the  University  of  Mis¬ 
souri,  in  a  letter  dated  February  1,  1912,  says:  “The  work  you  are  begin¬ 
ning  there  should  prove  an  inspiration  to  all  State  universities,  especially  this 
one,  for  they  are,  I  believe,  destined  to  be  the  only  great  universities  in  the 
Southwest — at  any  rate,  for  a  long  time  to  come.” 


3— 


Preliminary  Explanations  for  Table  I. 

It  is  most  significant  that  the  States  which  had  to  be  included  in  a  group 
of  “all  the  States*  that  have  seriously  undertaken  to  secure  efficient  services"' 
from  their  State  institutions  for  higher  education  should  turn  out  to  be  ex¬ 
actly  those  States  which  have  adopted  the  method  of  a  State  tax  for  the 
maintenance  of  their  universities, — and  no  other  States.** 

There  is  an  important  lesson  in  this  for  any  State  which  precipitates  its 
educational  institutions  into  a  free-for-all  scramble  before  each  Legislature 
in  order  to  continue  a  precarious  existence. 

Illinois  is  not  shown  in  the  table  with  any  income  from  a  State  tax; 
but  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  has  recently  enacted  a  law  which  will  levy 
for  the  future  a  tax  of  1  mill  on  the  dollar  (10  cents  on  $100)  for  the 
University  of  Illinois.  After  next  year  this  tax  will  supply  about  $2,250,000 
a  year.  Illinois,  however,  would  have  been  included  on  the  merits  of  past 
years.  The  appreciation  by  the  Illinois  Legislature  of  the  people’s  need 
of  a  good  State  University  has  secured  appropriations  so  nearly  sufficient 
that  the  need  for  a  more  systematic  way  of  support  has  not  been  pressing 
in  Illinois.  For  instance,  the  Legislature  appropriated  $1,216,500  for  the 
year  1909-10,  and  $1,097,000  for  1910-11  (the  year  dealt  with  in  the 
table),  in  addition  to  the  university’s  nearly  half-million  dollars  a  year  from 
other  sources.  Illinois  has,  also,  the  still  larger  University  of  Chicago,  which 
is  not  taken  into  account  at  all  in  the  comparisons  shown  in  this  study. 

It  should  be  stated  in  regard  to  California,  that  during  the  year  1909-10 
the  University  of  California,  received  from  private  donations  $1,156,323, 
much  of  which  was  available  for  1910-11 ;  but  no  part  of  that  great  assistance 
(44  cents  per  capita  for  the  entire  population)  is  shown  in  the  income  for 
last  year  given  in  the  table.  The  attentive  reader  will  see  at  various  points 
how  the  average  scale  of  expenditure  is  really  much  greater  than  the  mini¬ 
mum  result  presented  in  the  conclusion  of  this  investigation. 

i 

It  would  not  have  been  desirable,  but  it  was  also  impossible  to  consider 
universities  apart  from  agricultural  colleges.  In  nearly  half  of  the  States 
which  required  investigation  both  are  combined  in  one  university. 

For  the  convenience  of  Texas  readers  the  separate  figures  for  the  Texas 
institutions  have  been  given,  but  it  is  their  sum,  entitled  “Texas,”  which 
should  be  compared  with  the  figures  for  other  States.  The  College  of  Indus¬ 
trial  Arts  for  Women,  at  Denton,  is  a  rather  unique  institution,  and  nearlv 
half  of  its  students  are  yet  “preparatory”;  nevertheless — in  order  to  give 
Texas  all  possible  credit  for  expenditures  for  higher  education — that  institu¬ 
tion  was  included. 

The  names  of  the  States  in  the  tables  here  presented,  refer,  therefore, 

*The  omission  of  Wyoming  to  avoid  obscuring  the  statistical  result  has  been  explained. 

**There  are  three  other  States  (Ky„  S.  C.,  and  Tenn.)  in  which  the  law  provides  a  trifling  tax 
for  a  State  university  or  agricultural  college,  but  the  rate  of  the  tax  is  so  absurdly  small  that  it  demon¬ 
strates  the  very  opposite  of  a  measure  “seriously  undertaken.”  The  people  are  worse  served  than  if 
their  institutions  were  left  entirely  to  appropriations  by  each  legislature. 


4 


respectively,  as  the  case  may  be,  either  to  one  comprehensive  State  university, 
or  to  the  sum  of  independent  parts  of  such  a  university,  as  follows: 

California — University  of  California. 

Colorado — University  of  Colorado,  State  Agricultural  College,  Colorado  School  of 
Mines. 

Illinois — University  of  Illinois. 

Indiana — Indiana  University,  Purdue  University. 

Iowa — State  University  of  Iowa,  State  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts. 

Michigan — University  of  Michigan,  Michigan  State  Agricultural  College,  Michigan 
College  of  Mines. 

Minnesota — University  of  Minnesota. 

Nebraska — University  of  Nebraska. 

North  Dakota — State  University  and  School  of  Mines,  North  Dakota  Agricultural 
College. 

Ohio — Ohio  University,  Ohio  State  University,  Miami  University. 

Wisconsin — University  of  Wisconsin. 

Kansas — University  of  Kansas,  Kansas  State  Agricultural  College. 

Missouri — University  of  Missouri. 

Texas — University  of  Texas,  Agricultural  and  Mechanical  College  of  Texas,  State 
College  for  Women. 


Table  I 


1910-1911 

State  Universities 
and  A.  &  M. 
Colleges 

State  tax  in 
cents  on  $100 

Income 
from  State 
tax 

Additional 
appropriations 
by  Legislature 

From 

[United 

States 

Govern¬ 

ment 

Income  from 
productive 
endowment 

Income  from 
private 
donations 

From 

student  fees 
and  all 
other 

sources. 

Total  income 
for  the  year 
1910-1911 

California . 

Colorado . 

3 

8 

$710,773 

313,920 

$301,786 

127,869 

1,097,000 

237,500 

728,650 

74,000 

1,060,377 

110,000 

222,817 

476,975 

'444,135 

$75,000 

73,638 

75,000 

75,000 

75,000 

75,000 

73,000 

75,000 

75,000 

45,000 

75,000 

$203,382 

14,350 

32,468 

61,445 

42,703 

126,767 

59,157 

42,250 

106,506 

68,405 

36,503 

$  104,898 

$276,877 
132,677 
355,572 
217,494 
285,008 
824 , 548 
203,981 
130,232 
83,230 
212,346 
404  ,603 

$1,672,716 

662,454 

1,560,040 

1,141,453 

1,418,883 

2,155,624 

1,806,800 

748,982 

615,110 

1,363,229 

1,789,469 

Illinois 

Indiana . 

Iowa . 

2 

4 

2^ 

10 

5* 

2f 

350,014 

287,522 

823,697 

410,285 

391,500 

127,557 

554,517 

783,765 

200,000 

Michigan . 

Minnesota . 

231,612 

Nebraska  . 

North  Dakota 

Ohio . 

Wisconsin . 

5,986 

45,463 

Average . 

4. 1 

$432,141 

$443,737 

$71,967 

$72  ,176 

$  53,451 

$284,233 

$1,357,706 

Kansas . 

none 

none 

$886,022 

$75,000 

$38,492 

$98,533 

$1,098,047 

Missouri . 

none 

none 

$638,330 

$72,187 

$64,561 

$78,715 

$853,793 

Univ.  of  Tex... 
A.  &  M.  Col  ... 
Woman’s  Col.. 

$295,442 

259,250 

40,325 

$63,750 

$157,185 

8,234 

$100 

$30,564 

33,595 

2,350 

$483,291 

364,829 

42,635 

Texas . 

none 

none 

$595,017 

$63,750 

$165,419 

$100 

$66,509 

$890,795 

The  rates  of  the  State  taxes  are  on  various  assessment  bases;  for  adjustments  see  Table  III. 

In  Illinois  the  last  legislature  enacted  a  law  establishing  a  10  cents  tax  for  the  State  University, 
which  for  the  future  will  more  than  double  the  annual  appropriation  given  in  the  table. 

In  the  columns  showing  income  from  Private  Donations  and  Productive  Endowment, 
receipts  for  fellowships,  scholarships,  and  prizes  have  been  excluded.  Such  moneys  help  individuals, 
and  in  some  cases  (especially  endowed  fellowships)  help  the  public  service,  but  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  financial  support  of  a  university. 

In  the  column  “Student  Fees  and  all  other  sources,”  fees  for  board  and  rent  are  excluded  for  the 
same  reason.  Student  fees  yield  about  60  per  cent  of  the  amounts  in  that  column. 


5 


Comment  and  Interpretation — Table  I 

The  most  important  feature  of  the  present  study  will  be  obscured  for  any 
reader  who  fails  to  grasp  the  significance  of  the  “ Average”  shown  in  each 
column  of  the  tables.  The  interpretative  comments  offered  in  this  study 
deserve,  therefore,  the  reader’s  attention. 

The  last  column  of  Table  I  gives  the  total  income  of  each  State  univer¬ 
sity.  The  Average,  in  that  column  is  significant  only  in  connection  with  the 
number  of  students,  etc.,  in  Table  II,  and  with  the  population,  etc.,  in  Table 
III.  Duly  related  with  the  developments  of  the  other  tables,  it  will  afford 
just  means  for  estimating  the  cost  of  institutions  in  Texas  which  would  have 
the  average  efficiency  of  the  institutions  referred  to.  Of  course  “average 
efficiency”  has  no  numerical  meaning,  since  efficiency  in  a  concrete  case 
depends  as  much  upon  the  wisdom  of  persons  as  it  does  upon  the  financial 
basis.  It  would  be  impossible  in  a  statistical  discussion  to  take  the  wisdom 
factor  into  account. 

One  conspicuous  advantage  of  this  average  is  its  reduction  of  the  annual 
expenditure  required  for  buildings  to  a  normal  or  steady  factor.  In  a  com¬ 
parison  of  any  two  institutions  for  any  one  year,  this  factor  is  likely  to  be 
very  disturbing. 

The  sources  of  income  are  shown  in  the  table;  but  I  can  not  urge  too 
emphatically  that  (except  for  one  instructive  lesson)  the  sources  have  no 
rational  bearing  upon  the  main  question  the  people  of  Texas  need  to  consider. 

The  important  point  is  the  total  income  required.  In  considering  any 
particular  university,  its  income  from  Federal  government,  productive  endow¬ 
ment,  and  any  independent  source,  such  as  private  donations,  should  be  de¬ 
ducted;  the  remainder  is  what  the  State  needs  to  provide. 

For  instance,  the  University  (including  A.  and  M.  College)  in  Texas  has 
eleven  times  as  much  income  from  productive  endowment,  as  is  the  case  in 
Colorado.  The  fact  is  of  no  practical  interest  to  the  people  of  Colorado.  If 
they  desire  the  services  of  the  “Average”  university,  they  have  simply  to  sup¬ 
ply  the  difference.  Or,  to  take  another  example,  past  experience  entitles  the 
people  of  some  States*  to  count  upon  a  substantial  yearly  income  from  private 
donations.  So  much  the  better  for  them,  but  that  has,  as  yet,  no  practical 
bearing  upon  the  question  in  Texas. 

The  column  “Additional  Appropriations”  affords  an  instructive  lesson,  if 
Texas  is  to  take  a  place  among  the  States  whose  practice  is  shown.  The  proof 
there  lies  open  to  the  reader  that,  if  the  benefits  of  a  tax  for  higher  education 
are  to  be  secured,  a  greater  rate  than  the  average  is  necessary.  The  experience 
is  the  same  in  every  State,  and  in  some  the  additional  appropriations  far 
exceed  the  incomes  from  the  specific  taxes.  Surely  the  lesson  is  plain. 

The  comparison  of  Texas  with  the  “Average”  will  be  advantageously  de¬ 
ferred  until  the  data  of  Table  II  and  Table  III  are  also  before  us. 


♦See  reference  to  California  on  page  3.  The  University  of  California  usually  receives  larger 
gifts  than  was  the  case  in  1910 — the  pear  of  the  Table. 


— 6— 


Table  II. 


1910-1911 

State  Universities  and 

A.  &  M.  Colleges 

Number  of  Pro¬ 
fessors  and  In¬ 
structors 

Number 
of  students 
excluding 
Summer 
Schools 

Ratio  of  No. 
of  students 
to  No.  of 
Professors 
and  Instruc¬ 
tors 

Total 

annual  income 

Total  income 
divided  by 
number  of 
students 

Estimated  value 
of  grounds, 
buildings  and 
equipment 

California . 

421 

4314 

10.2 

$1,672,716 

$388 

$9,488,122 

Colorado . 

255 

2251 

9.6 

622,454 

294 

2,618,771 

Illinois . 

578 

4896 

8.5 

1,560,040 

319 

4,304,935 

Indiana . 

c26 

3838 

11.8 

1,141,453 

297 

2,296,150 

Iowa . 

348 

3619 

10.4 

1,418,883 

392 

5,684,239 

Michigan . 

470 

6541 

13.9 

2,155,624 

330 

6,427,722 

Minnesota . 

363 

4156 

11.4 

1,806,800 

435 

6,070,000 

Nebraska . 

333 

2839 

8.5 

748,982 

264 

1,929,850 

North  Dakota . 

156 

1199 

7.7 

615  A10 

513 

i;590;500 

Ohio . 

320 

4102 

12.8 

1,363,229 

332 

6,253,138 

Wisconsin . 

486 

4099 

8.4 

1,789,469 

437 

5,660,072 

Average . 

369 

3805 

10.2 

$1,357,706 

$364 

$4,756,680 

Kansas . . 

270 

4082 

15.1 

$1,098,047 

$269 

$2,895,363 

Missouri . 

173 

2741 

15.8 

$853,793 

$311 

$2,366,337 

Univ.  of  Tex . 

107 

1939 

18.1 

$483,291 

$249 

$1,818,000 

A.  &  M.  Col . 

68 

1057 

15.5 

364,829 

345 

1,195,485 

Woman’s  Col . 

26 

272 

10.5 

42,675 

157 

201,000 

Texas . 

201 

3268 

16.3 

$890,795 

$273 

$3,214,485 

Comment  and  Interpretation — Table  II. 

In  the  column,  “Total  Income  Divided  by  Number  of  Students/’  the 
exact  nature  and  derivation  of  the  figures  is  stated  in  the  heading  of 
the  column,  and  the  reader  needs  only  to  be  reminded  that  every  insti¬ 
tution  concerned  expends  considerable  sums  on  scientific  research,  agri¬ 
cultural  experiment  stations,  geological  surveys,  and  “university  extension” 
services  of  great  variety.  In  some  instances  thousands  of  persons  not  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  “number  of  students”  are  systematically  taught  by  correspond¬ 
ence.  A  great  many  other  services  to  the  State  and  to  individual  citizens, 
besides  teaching  the  students  “for  the  regular  term  of  enrollment,”  might  be 
mentioned. 

The  numbers  in  the  first  column  exclude  tutors  and  student  assistants. 

The  second  column  gives  the  number  of  students  for  regular  term  of  enroll¬ 
ment,  excluding  summer  school  and  short-course  students,  and  those  who 
study  through  correspondence.  Preparatory  students  are  also  excluded  in  the 
few  cases  where  any  such  are  received.  One  exception  to  the  last  statement 
has  been  mentioned  in  speaking  of  the  Texas  college  for  women. 


— 7 — 


In  the  column  “Ratio  of  Number  of  Students  to  Number  of  Professors 
and  Instructors/5  and  in  the  column  “Total  Income  Divided  by  the  Number 
of  Studentc/5  either  of  two  procedures  might  be  followed. 

Consider  the  “Income  Divided  by  the  Number  of  Students55 :  The  average 
of  the  numbers  stating  the  facts  for  the  eleven  different  States  represents  an 
average  condition  referring  to  the  eleven  different  conditions  in  the  eleven 
different  States.  The  result,  $364,  is  given  in  the  table.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  total  income  of  all  the  institutions  divided  by  the  total  number  of  stu¬ 
dents  gives  a  corresponding  fact  for  the  41,854  students  and  the  $14,934,760 
of  the  entire  group,  which  is  $357. 

In  the  column  giving  the  ratio  of  number  of  students  to  number  of  teach¬ 
ers,  it  happens  that  the  result  is  the  same  either  way. 


Table  III 


States 

Population 
Census  1910 

i 

i 

Amount  s  p  e  n  t  by 
State  Institutions  ! 
for  Higher  Educa-  : 
tion  per  inhabitant. 

Assessed  valuation  of 
property  in  the  State  in 
1910, — all  reduced  to  50 
per  cent  of  actual  value 

Amount  spent  by 

State  Institutions 

for  Higher  Educa¬ 

tion  per  $1000  of 
wealth  at  50  per  cent 

of  actual  value 

Tax  rate  in  cents  on 

$100,  at  50  per  cent 

of  actual  value,  which 

would  provide  the 

part  of  total  cost 

paid  by  the  State 

California . 

2,377,549 

$  .71 

$2,373,897,092 

$  .70 

4| 

Colorado . 

799,024 

.83 

622,328  666 

1.06 

n 

Illinois . 

5,638,591 

.28 

3,237,972,675 

.48 

3* 

Indiana . 

2,700,876 

.42 

1,480,110,080 

.77 

4 

Iowa . 

2,224,771 

.64 

1,512,710,640 

.94 

7 

Michigan . . 

2,810,173 

.77 

1,451,012,615 

1.48 

6* 

Minnesota . 

2,075,708 

.87 

1,746,329,110 

1.03 

8f 

Nebraska . 

1,192,214 

.63 

1,038,675,187 

.72 

5 

North  Dakota . 

577,056 

1.06 

696,485,482 

.86 

51 

Ohio . 

4,767,121 

.29 

1,960,567,353 

.69 

51 

Wisconsin . 

2,333,860 

.77 

1,470,706,421 

1.22 

81 

Average . 

2,499,722 

$  48 

$1,599,163,211 

$  .m 

. I* 

6 

Kansas . 

$1,690,949 

$  .65 

$1,528,943,030 

$  .71 

6 

Missouri . 

3,293,335 

$  .26 

$2,255,372,739 

$  .38 

3 

Texas . 

3,896,542 

$  .22 

$2,391,109,795 

$  .37 

2! 

Note:  The  next  to  the  last  column  does  not  state  the  tax  paid  on  property  worth  $2000,  but 
what  would  have  to  be  paid  on  that  amount  of  property,  if  the  institutions  were  maintained  entirely 
by  taxation.  The  last  column  gives  the  rates  actually  paid  (without  making  due  allowance  for 
cost  of  collection  and  delinquency)  on  assessments  alleged  to  be  at  50  per  cent,  of  actual  value. 

The  rates  in  every  case  are  reduced  to  the  same  basis  of  assessment,  50  percent  of  actual  value. 
For  instance,  the  nominal  rate  of  tax  for  the  University  of  Nebraska  is  10  cents,  and  nearly  3  cents 
is  added  in  additional  appropriation  by  each  Legislature;  but  the  basis  of  assessment  in  Nebraska  is 
only  20  per  cent  of  actual  value.  Hence,  in  the  just  treatment  of  facts  presented  in  this  study,  the 
rate  in  Nebraska  is  put  down  in  its  true  relation,  as  only  5  cents. 


Comment  and  Interpretation — Table  III 

The  assessed  valuation  of  property  in  each  State  has  been  reduced  to  the 
same  percentage  of  actual  value.  The  reported  percentages*  for  the  States 
considered  comprise  valuations  at  20  per  cent,  25  per  cent,  33  per  cent, 
33^  per  cent,  35  per  cent,  40  per  cent,  50  per  cent,  55  per  cent,  60  per  cent, 
80  per  cent,  and  100  per  cent  of  actual  value.  The  Texas  assessment  has 
been  assumed  to  be  at  50  per  cent  of  actual  value.  Unless  reduced  to  the 
same  basis,  comparison  would  be  absurd.  What  would  it  mean,  for  instance, 
to  compare  directly  Nebraska’s  assessment  at  20  per  centum  of  actual  value 
with  Wisconsin’s  genuine  full  rendition  at  100  per  centum  of  actual  value? 
Assessed  values  are  vague  enough  at  best;  but  probably  each  State  falls  short 
of  the  truth,  for  its  alleged  basis,  to  approximately  the  same  extent,  and 
when  all  are  reduced  to  the  same  basis  comparisons  may  be  made. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  the  reported  percentages  of  actual  value  will  be 
high,  if  the  assessments  should  be  compared  with  estimates  of  wealth,  such  as 
those  of  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Commerce  of  the  Census  Bureau.  It  is 
the  opinion  of  the  writer  that  the  reported  percentages  (33  and  60)  for 
Illinois  and  Ohio  are  disproportionately  high.  Doubtless  much  wealth 
escapes  the  assessor,  but  the  matter  in  hand  is  practically  limited  to  wealth 
that  is  listed  by  the  tax  assessor.  The  question  has  little  to  do  with  the 
important  object  of  this  investigation,  which  is  to  ascertain  the  actual  cost 
of  a  commonwealth  university  having  the  average  efficiency  of  the  better  sort 
of  such  institutions.  How  all  the  existing  wealth  in  Texas,  or  in  any  other 
State,  might  be  equally  reached  for  taxation,  is  another  and  more  difficult 
question. 

The  column,  “Amount  Spent  by  State  Institutions  for  Higher  Education 
per  $1000  of  Wealth  at  50  Per  Cent  of  Actual  Value,”  does  not  show  the  actual 
cost  to  each  owner  of  property  worth  $2000,  but  what  the  owner  of  such 
property  would  pay  if  the  institutions  were  maintained  entirely  by  direct 
taxation.  The  last  column  gives  for  each  State  the  tax  rate  in  cents  on  the 
$100  of  assessment  alleged  to  be  at  50  per  cent  of  actual  value,  which  would 
provide  the  part  of  the  cost  that  was  paid  by  the  State. 

It  should  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  that  the  valuable  fact  for  the  prac¬ 
tical  consideration  of  every  statesman  and  intelligent  citizen  of  Texas  is  the 
proper  total  cost  of  the  institutions  needed  by  the  people  of  this  State. 

The  income  from  the  Federal  government  and  permanent  endowment  and 
any  other  independent  source  is  a  known  factor.  Deduct  that  amount,  what¬ 
ever  it  may  be,  and  the  remainder  will  be  what  the  people  must  pay,  if  they 
propose  to  secure  for  themselves  the  services  renderd  by  the  “average”  com¬ 
monwealth  university  in  the  group  of  States  considered. 

The  “Average”  in  the  column  showing  the  amounts  spent  per  $1000  of 
wealth  at  50  per  cent  of  actual  value  might  be  derived  in  either  of  two  ways: 
by  taking  the  average  of  the  eleven  different  conditions  in  the  eleven  States, 

*The  assessments  for  the  year  1910  and  percentages  of  actual  value  have  been  taken  from  the 
World  Almanac  and  Encyclopedia,  issues  of  1911  and  1912.  For  Michigan  and  Texas  no  percentum 
of  actual  value  was  given,  but  the  Michigan  Board  of  Tax  Commissioners  has  carefully  estimated  bl 
per  cent,  for  the  1911  assessment.  Sixty  per  cent,  was  taken  as  the  basis  for  reducing  the  1910  as¬ 
sessment  in  Michigan,  and  the  Texas  assessment  wasset'down  as  being  at  50  per  cent,  of  actual  value. 

For  Iowa  the  1911  assessment  is  used,  because  thereport  for  1910  did  not  include  the  railroads  and 
telegraph  and  telephone  lines.  The  Nebraska  assessment  is  also  for  1911,  that  for  1910  not  being 
given.  The  Kansas  assessment  for  1910  is  used,  but  instead  of  the  100  per  cent,  alleged  for  that  year, 
90  per  cent,  was  taken  from  the  report  for  1911  as  the  basis  for  reducing  the  1910  assessment  to  the 
uniform  basis  of  the  Table. 


a 


or  by  considering  the  total  valuation  of  property  and  the  total  expenditure 
of  the  entire  group.  The  former  procedure  yields  the  90  cents  given  in  the 
table;  the  other  way  gives  85  cents. 

In  the  column  “Amount  Spent  by  State  Institutions  for  Higher  Educa¬ 
tion  per  Inhabitant,”  the  average  of  the  different  conditions  is  66  cents,  and 
the  total  annual  cost  of  all  the  institutions  divided  by  the  total  population  of 
all  the  States  is  54  cents. 

In  the  last  column  the  average  of  the  different  rates  is  6  cents,  and  the 
corresponding  fact  for  the  entire  group  is  5-J  cents. 

For  the  purpose  of  what  may  be  called  a  composite  photograph,  the  appro¬ 
priate  averages  have  been  given  in  the  tables. 

One  concluding  remark  should  be  made  concerning  the  original  data. 
Within  the  available  time,  no  pains  have  been  spared  to  make  them  accu¬ 
rate;  but  no  one  could  know  better  than  the  writer  that  accuracy  has  been 
only  approximated.  Printed  reports  have  been  corrected  by  correspondence 
as  far  as  possible.  Some  points  remain  unverified,  but,  judging  from  experi¬ 
ence,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  data,  it  may  be  believed  that  the  “"Average” 
would  nowhere  be  substantially  altered  by  further  corrections.  Particular 
items  would  be  altered  by  prolonged  investigations;  but  the  changes  would 
work  both  ways,  and  the  sum  totals  could  not  be  much  affected.  In  every 
column  it  would  probably  be  a  case  of  compensating  errors  which  are  elim¬ 
inated  from  the  average. 


The  “Average.” 

We  may  now  consider  the  “Average”  of  this  group  of  States,  selected  at 
the  outset  as  being  the  States  which  have  at  least  undertaken  by  reasonable 
financial  measures  to  secure  efficient  services  from  their  State  institutions  for 
higher  education.  That  the  people  of  those  States  appreciate  what  they  are 
experiencing,  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  their  Legislatures  regularly 
appropriate  an  additional  amount  approximately  equal  to  tne  proceeds  of  the 
specific  taxes  for  the  same  purpose. 

The  “Average”  is  a  State  with  a  population  of  2,499,722  (Texas,  3,896,- 
542)  ;  with  property,  assessed  at  50  per  cent,  of  actual  value,  amounting  to 
$1,599,163,211  (Texas,  $2,391,109,795). 

The  commonwealth  university  of  this  average  State  spends  yearly  in  its 
activities  66  cents  per  inhabitant  and  90  cents  per  $1000  of  an  assessment  at 
50  per  cent  of  actual  value  (Texas,  22  cents,  and  37  cents),  or  $1,357,706 
(Texas,  $890,795).  Its  institution  has  369  professors  and  instructors 
(Texas,  201)  ;  3805  students  (Texas,  3268)  ;  and  a  “plant”  valued  at  $4,- 
756,680  (Texas,  3,214,485). 

» 

In  order  to  adjust  matters  to  an  equal  basis  for  comparison,  it  is  necessary 
to  reduce  the  average  conditions  to  an  equilibrium  with  Texas  conditions. 
How  should  this  be  done? 

Three  factors  require  consideration,  viz. :  population,  wealth,  number  of 
students. 


—10 


If  the  average  State  grew  in  population  to  that  of  Texas,  and  if  its  insti¬ 
tution  continued  to  spend  66  cents  per  inhabitant,  it  would  spend  $2,571,708 
a  year. 

If  the  taxed  wealth  of  the  average  State  grew  to  that  of  Texas,  and  its 
institution  continued  to  spend  90  cents  per  $1000  (at  50  per  cent  of  actual 
value),  it  would  spend  $2,151,999. 

There  is  no  theoretical  ground  for  combining  two  results,  one  derived  from 
population  and  the  other  from  assessed  property  valuations;  but,  in  order  to 
give  weight  to  both  factors,  let  us  take  the  mean,  or  half  the  sum  of  the  two. 
That  gives  $2,361,858. 

If  the  alternative  rates,  derived  on  page  9,  the  54  cents  per  inhabitant 
spend  by  the  27,496,943  inhabitants  of  all  the  States  as  one  body,  and  the  85 
cents  per  $1000  of  the  total  property  assessment  of  the  entire  group,  were 
used  instead  of  the  averages,  the  results  would  be  $2,104,133  and  $2,032,444, 
giving  the  mean  $2,068,289.  The  difference  is  $292,569 ;  but  the  allowances 
already  made,  and  others  yet  to  be  made,  more  than  cover  that  difference. 
The  averages  give  the  more  just  basis,  and  the  most  reliable  result  afforded 
by  the  data  is  $2,361,858. 


That  amount,  then — $2,361,858 — is  what  the  State  institutions  of  higher 
education  would  have  snent  last  year  in  Texas,  if  thev  had  been  working  on 
the  same  standard  of  efficienev  as  the  average  of  the  institutions  of  the  other 
States,  and  if  the  }routh  of  Texas  sought  the  advantages  of  higher  education 
in  the  average  proportion. 

At  this  point  an  element  is  introduced  which  it  is  impossible  to  deal  with 
adequately  from  the  statistical  data. 

We  will  proceed,  however,  to  ascertain,  as  nearly  as  may  he,  what  it  would 
have  cost  to  have  done  equally  well  last  year  by  the  students  then  on  our 
campuses,  as  was  done  in  the  other  States.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
this  procedure  ignores  the  fact  that  the  population  of  Texas  is  nearly  60  per 
cent  greater  than  that  of  the  “Average”  State,  and  also  loses  sight  of  the 
manifold  services  needed  by  the  people  besides  the  instruction  of  the  youths 
who  go  to  college. 

Tn  the  entire  group  of  States  there  were  41,854  students  in  the  State  insti¬ 
tutions,  out  of  a  total  population  of  27,496,943;  that  is  to  say,  about  1.5 
for  each  1000.  Accordingly  our  “Average”  State,  after  growing  to  the  popu¬ 
lation  of  Texas,  would  have  increased  the  number  of  its  students  from  3805 
to  5844. 

The  State  institutions  of  Texas  had  last  vear  3268  students,  which  is  onlv 
0.8  of  a  student  per  1000  of  population.  The  average  expenditure  was 
$364  per  student.  Hence  an  opponent  of  a  proposal  for  the  proper  main¬ 
tenance  might  claim  that  the  average  scale  of  investment  would  have  been 
reached  by  an  expenditure  equal  to  the  average  rate  per  student  multiplied 
by  the  number  of  regular  students  in  the  Texas  institutions  last  year.  That 
result  is  $364  multiplied  by  3268,  or  $1,189,552. 

The  total  expenditure  by  the  three  Texas  institutions  last  year  from  all 
sources  (only  $595,017  from  taxation)  was  $890,795.  Accordingly,  it  would 
have  required  about  $300,000  more  to  have  given  the  Texas  institutions  last 
year  the  average  teaching  force.  Of  course,  this  view  disregards  all  other 
services  to  the  people,  and  considers  only  the  teaching  of  students  in  regular 


—11 


attendance.  Investigation  and  research,  correspondence  schools,  experiment 
stations,  and  extension  work  of  all  kinds  are  excluded. 

If  we  had  better  maintained  institutions  in  Texas,  more  students  would 
seek  to  profit  by  them.  And  if  institutions  of  average  efficiency  were  de¬ 
veloped,  Texas  would  not  remain  behind  the  average  State  in  the  number  per 
thousand  of  her  inhabitants  who  would  avail  themselves  of  the  advantages 
offered. 

It  would  be  foolish  to  base  calculations  for  the  future  upon  the  number  of 
students  last  year,  and  it  would  be  advisable  not  to  assume  a  lower  level  for 
Texas  than  the  average  of  all  the  States  that  are  even  attempting  to  secure 
the  benefits  in  question. 

One-and-a-half  students  per  thousand  of  population  might  exceed  the  fact 
for  two  years,  but  no  longer,  if  better  equipment  and  maintenance  increased 
and  extended  the  advantages  of  attendance.  Even  under  present  conditions, 
the  number  of  students  grows  rapidly  every  year. 

The  one  or  two  years  that  might  allow  some  saving  in  the  factor  of  cost 
which  depends  upon  the  number  of  students  would  afford  an  opportunity  to 
supply  deficiencies  in  equipment.  This  is  the  point  at  which  to  consider  the 
enormous  discrepancy  in  the  cost  of  the  “plant,”  that  exists  between  Texas 
and  the  “Average.” 

The  average  institution  in  a  State  of  only  five-eighths  of  our  population 
has  a  plant  costing  $1,500,000  more. 

Texas  could  not  save  out  of  an  income  provided  for  the  normal  attendance 
in  other  States,  during  the  year  or  two  that  might  elapse  before  the  number 
of  students  became  normal,  enough  to  supply  even  $500,000  of  the  present 
$1,500,000  deficiency  in  material  equipment.  This  fact  disposes  of  all  candid 
objections  to  immediate  action  on  the  proper  basis,  that  might  be  offered  on 
account  of  the  present  sub-normal  attendance. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  discussion  to  exhort,  but  to  give  reliable  infor¬ 
mation.  Comment  has  been  confined  to  elucidation :  a  fact  is  not  the  truth 
for  a  mind  that  does  not  comprehend  its  true  relations. 

The  important  conclusion  of  this  investigation  is  now  at  hand. 

It  would  be  an  affectation  of  impossible  accuracy  to  deal,  at  this  stage, 
with  figures  in  the  first  four  places  of  enumeration.  From  the  conservatively 
derived  figure,  $2,361,858,  we  may  take  $2,350,000  as  the  lowest  that  will 
admit  Texas  to  the  company  of  the  States  that  are  giving  practical  attention 
to  their  institutions  for  higher  education. 

Of  that  amount,  about  $350,000  a  year  may  be  counted  upon  from  the 
Federal  government,  endowment,  and  student  fees.  The  remainder,  $2,000.- 
000.  would  have  to  be  provided  for  the  three  existing  institutions  from  the 
revenues  of  the  State. 

Upon  the  Texas  assessment  for  1911,  $2,515,594,626,  a  tax  of  eight-tenths 
of  a  mill  (8  cents  on  $100)  would  yield  $2,012,475,  less  cost  of  collection. 

If  the  deduction  for  cost  of  collection  and  delinquency  were  estimated,  as 
is  customarily  clone  in  the  Comptroller’s  department,  at  20  per  cent  of  the 
nominal  proceeds,  the  net  proceeds  of  such  a  tax  would  he  reduced  by  $402,- 
495,  or  to  $1,609,980.  That  amount  would  fall  short  by  nearly  $400,000 
of  the  $2,000,000  required.  But  20  per  cent  for  cost  of  collection  and  de- 


—12— 


iinquency  is,  I  believe,  too  high  an  estimate.  The  net  proceeds  of  an  8-ceni.s 
tax  would  not  fall  very  short  of  the  requisite  sum — $2,000,000. 

The  rate  of  eight-tenths  of  a  mill,  or  8  cents  on  $100,  would  suffice,  with 
wise  administration,  to  reach  the  present  average  standard  in  the  other  States. 

One  of  the  great  advantages  of  an  established  tax  for  educational  institu¬ 
tions  is  the  fact  that  the  increase  of  property  value  keeps  pace,  at  the  same  tax 
rate,  with  the  increase  of  students  and  with  the  increasing  needs  of  a  growing 
population  for  many  direct  public  services. 

The  rate,  8  cents  on  the  $100,  if  Texas  candidly  proposes  to  attend  intelli¬ 
gently  to  the  business  of  providing  for  efficient  services  from  its  State  insti¬ 
tutions  of  higher  education,  will  seem  high  only  to  those  not  informed  of  the 
actual  practice  in  other  States. 

The  average  of  the  eleven  States  is  6  cents  (without  due  allowance  for 
cost  of  collection),  and  that-  has  already  been  raised  by  tire  recently  estab¬ 
lished  10-eents  tax  for  the  University  of  Illinois.  The  reader  is  also  re¬ 
minded  again  that  in  California,  Illinois,  and  Ohio,  great  universities  which 
have  been  entirely  excluded  from  consideration  equal  or  exceed  the  State 
universities. 

The  co-operation  of  the  people  to  secure  for  themselves  the  services  of  a 
comprehensive  and  efficient  university,  requires  in  Wisconsin  8-|  cents,  in 
Minnesota  8f-  cents,  in  Michigan  6^  cents,  in  Iowa  7  cents,  in  Colorado  7J 
cents, — with  almost  no  allowance  for  cost  of  collection.  These  being  the 
States  of  the  whole  list  with  which  Texas  would  be  most  justly  and  most 
willingly  compared,  the  8  cents  suggested  for  Texas  should  not  startle  anybody. 

There  are  many  Texans  who  would  not  be  permanently  satisfied  by  secure 
ing  only  average  educational  and  scientific  services  from  their  institutions 
but  it  would  be  prudent  to  postpone  any  undertaking  looking  toward  leader¬ 
ship,  until  appropriate  measures  for  so  high  an  enterprise  can  be  adopted  ii| 
the  light  of  experience  with  an  average  status. 

Perhaps  the  people  of  Texas  do  not  now  desire  enlarged  and  more  efficien ; 
services  from  their  State  institutions;  but,  if  they  do,  they  may  learn  here 
what  they  will  undoubtedly  have  to  pay  to  secure  such  services. 

Upon  the  question  of  desire,  all  that  could  be  needed  is  a  knowledge  of  the 
many  valuable  services  to  the  people,  not  now  generally  understood  outside  of 
those  States  whose  social  and  industrial  enterprises  are  already  profiting  by 
such  services. 

The  people  would  desire  if  they  knew. 

Arthur  Lefevre, 

Secretary  for  Eesearch. 

Austin,  Texas, 

March  28,  1912. 


